The Battle Of Algiers

While reading Peter Rainer's review of Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers, it seemed to be more of a informational piece rather than a commenting review. Though he does make a point of admitting he thinks it's "the most electrifyingly timely movie playing in New York", he only goes on to describe the actors involved in making the film and Pontecorvo himself.

I hoped to hear more of what he really liked about the film, and what techniques he enjoyed most. Though he describes techniques used he doesn't reflect on them. Even though I don't really believe this was a review per say, I learned alot from it. I didn't know that Pontecorvo was involved in the Milan resistance. I believe this is what helped this film become so successful, along with the fact it does a wonderful job at depicting realistic events that occured in the FLN resistance against the French. I also had no idea that actor Jean Martin had been blacklisted from France for signing a manifesto against the Algerian war. To me that is ironic he plays the French commander of war.

Overall Peter Rainer should have been published this not as a review but as an article. He does a wonderful job of describing what this film has been used for in the past and the people that were involved in the making of the film, but does poorly on commenting the stylistic details used, like many reviews do.

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

Throughout the film noir "genre", if it is a genre, I found myself getting lost alot of the time throughout the viewings. It seems that film noir tends to throw in random characters and scenes that later on have no point to the film leaving you to believe you missed something. Roman Polanski's 1974 film Chinatown is a much more entertaining than the other film noirs we've watched in class. It keeps the mystery going but adds the psychological drama to the plot. Though the other films were mysterious, they were extremely overdone in the dramatic factor, pulling away from that feeling. I also didn't necessarily think they threw anything in that didn't make sense.

One thing I really enjoyed about this film was the idea it was in color. Although black and white can show a certain mood and portray a certain feeling I still think much of that can be accomplished even when a movie is shot in color. The contrast between colors can really distinquish the mood rather than having a drab mood the entire film. The mood is also portrayed through the difference in high key versus low key lighting too.

Another thing I really enjoyed about this film is the revisionized femme-fatal. In the end Evelyn Mulray is the good character while her father is a traitor to her family. As his abusive past is revealed we as an audience start to sypathize for her. The hard-boiled detective, J.J. Jake Gittes isn't as violent as portrayed in other film noirs. I think the lack of violence, too, made this film more enjoyable.

Overall, this more contemporary film was much more enjoyable than the old classic film noirs we watched. The colors and the revisionized themes of this film noir made my viewing experience much more enjoyable.

Kiss Me Deadly

More like bore me to death. Robert Aldrich’s film Kiss Me Deadly not only was an incredibly horrible plot, it also was not that grabbing overall in the suspense factor. The way they portrayed suspense in the film was rather humorous and the ending, well that’s just self explanatory if you’ve seen the film.

Whenever Mike Hammer wanted information, the person would resist for about 30 seconds and then bam, Mike Hammer would smack them. I’m sorry, but when I see someone get smacked in the face, it’s more funny than suspenseful. Even if that suspense was built up, it is demolished by the sudden blows across people’s faces. If the movements weren’t so sudden and the sound effects weren’t so exaggerated, I think the suspense would have been more effective in this film.

The other thing that took away from the film was the plot, therefore making this movie, in my mind, just bad. Even at the end I still don’t understand the point of the girl in the beginning? Why was she at the beach home, and what did she know? That opening scene made me believe there was some torture house down the road or something, but in the end it was all about the nuclear bomb? I guess it just seems funny now because it isn’t a new thing to this world anymore. We know that nuclear energy can’t just be stored in a box. How did Christine Bailey ever get herself involved and why did she have the key? These are little things that just help with not enjoying the movie.

Overall I think most in the class can agree with me, the plot is just stupid. I don’t like sci-fi but even if I did, I don’t think this would pass as one of the greatest films of the past!

I have to say Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is now one of my favorite movies. This movie has the ability to draw in an audience by twisting the plot, so much that you may have to watch the film numerous timses to fully understand it. While some people may think that that aspect could take away from the movie, when they finally watch the film I think that they will find the plot is so enjoyable the confusion doesn't hit them as much. It is more a film where you catch new things each time you watch the film. Without Mr. Klobachar's assistance while viewing the film, I think I would be out renting this film just to reanalyze certain parts to see if I can set things straight.

One of the aspects of this film that sets that confusion is the ordering of flashbacks versus what is actually happening. Are these flashbacks really flashbacks? Or is Joel reliving the events of his life in his head. Sometimes it seems it is a memory, but other times Joel is actually changing his past which leads to the question of flashback or not? Some flashbacks are more obvious than others. The obvious ones include dissolves, blurred faces, muffled sound, and crumbling setting. When these things aren't being shown is when the question comes about.

Without the somewhat confusing, but not overly-distracting, plot line, I don't think this movie wouldn't have grabbed me so much. Because it draws me in and leaves me wanting more, I strongly believe this movie could keep me entertained everytime I watch it.

Long Duration, Too Long..

While watching Sergio Leone's The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (1966), I noticed there were many stylistic details that could have been done differently to make the viewing even better. One of the elements that took away from my experience watching the film was the long duration of shots. This coming from my personal view and not an audience as a whole, obviously there are some people who enjoyed the film as is.

In this film, when a scene was intended to portray suspense or anticipation, the duration of shots seemed to be carried out for too long. The very first scene of the movie shows Angel Eyes and a man staring at each other. This seemed to go on for at least 5 minutes if not longer. To me, I would understand there is a conflict whether they show people staring at each other for 1 minute rather than 5. Another time they do the same thing is when Tuco is looking for the grave. They film him running in circles and they show this for about 7 minutes straight. I don’t know about everyone else, but watching someone run in circles isn’t very enjoyable. It makes me dizzy and annoyed.

Though I know many viewed this film as a “masterpiece” and one of the greatest films, I really don’t think any film, no matter how good it is, needs to be nearly 3 hours long. No doubt I love The Pirates of the Caribbean movies and the Harry Potter movies, but I still don’t watch them a lot because of there length. If only the director cut out some of the extremely long and unnecessary shots, I think I would enjoy this film a lot more.

Requiem for a Western?

First off, opening with a repsonse to Mr. Klobachar's comment on "people being locked into a superhero world", I really feel they aren't necessarily locked into a superhero world, but more locked into a new genre era that they are unable to stray away from. New-age cinema progresses each year at finding a new way to impress their audiences, so films are not as much like the "classics" anymore. Though Clint Eastwood's film, Unforgiven, is not as much a classic, I still don't think it can be considered one of thoughs highly developed new-age cinema movies. Though being from a different genre than today's world, I still think it is comparible to confilcts found in today's society.

Thoughout Unforgiven, there is a constant self-conflict of William Munny and himself. He is fixed on the idea he is a reformed man all thanks to his diceased wife. Even though he does seem to be a better man now, and a loving and devoted father, you can tell when the Schofield Kid arrives that there is some thought into his past. As the film continues on after he accepts the job, he seems to constantly have to remind himself why he is the way he is now, becuase of his wife. After a constant internal struggle, he breaks down in the end, killing a massive amount of people, most in which haven't done anything, and drinking. Both things he "wasn't anymore".

In our society this happens everyday, the amounts of people "relapsing" back into a treatment center for addiction, or making it back into prison after already serving a sentence in jail. People these days try and convince themselves they can move on in life and leave certain traits and problems behind, but once something is established in your personality, it is pretty hard to just pick up and move on, leaving that certain thing behind. This same theme can be found in movies such as Requiem For a Dream, Blow, and other more contemporary films. Some of the classics and revisionist films aren't necesarily close to being like any new, contemporary films, but many of the overlying themes are the same.

Babel

Sound is a key element portrayed in director Alejandro Gonzáles Iñárritu’s 2006, award-winning film, Babel. The absence of sound in this film is just as important as the presence of sound. Both stylistic details present different emotions to the film.
Being a movie about various cultures, much of the time the music chosen was unfamiliar, but recognizably related to the certain culture present in the film. While watching a part of the film based in Tokyo, the music was faster paced, more upbeat, and what you would generally think of when thinking of a classical Japanese piece of music. When the film was set in Morocco, the music is set more at a rapid pace using sitars, and drums. It gives you the feel of traveling on a safari through the African deserts. During the one scene based in Mexico, the music was exciting, music you’d find playing at a fiesta, being the scene is set at a wedding. While in the US not much music is noticeable because of the very few scenes shot in the US. The one scene using music while in the US is when Amelia, the two American kid’s nanny, is trying to find a road, the music here is very dramatic after she finds out the kids are lost. Even though the scenes locations can easily be determined by the setting, you would still be able to tell just by the music that is used throughout the film. Much of the time the music is also a motif. The music doesn’t change for each specific country, while in Morocco, it is the same the next time the film switches back to a scene in Morocco.
Another way music director Gustavo Santaolalla uses sound in the film is the cutting between the presence of sound and the absence of sound. By doing this he can set a certain feeling and make it more dramatic. Though all the film is dramatic, he emphasizes the more dramatic scenes by cutting out the sound. It may seem that it is more dramatic listening to a person screaming rather than watching a person screaming, but it actually had a large affect on the feeling than I would have imagined. For instance, the first time it really became aware to me was when Amelia lost the two American children, Debbie and Mike. After realizing they weren’t where she left them they cut out all the sound and just show her screaming and crying. Crying and screaming to me are extremely annoying, and though it suggests a certain emotion, the annoyance of it could distract the audience. By cutting that out, it gives the audience the ability to imagine what she is feeling and how they would react to the situation. Another time Santaolalla does this is while Chieko, the Japanese Def-Mute girl, is at a rave. It cuts between her perspective, to everyone else’s perspective. While in our perspective, the music is loud and everyone there is yelling. As it cuts to Chieko’s perspective, it is absolutely silent. To me that was extremely impacting because other than those instances as it cuts out, you as an audience member don’t take the time to think about the fact she isn’t able to hear anything. Both these instances are perfect examples of how Santaolalla uses the absence of sound verses using sound in the film, that’s probably how he received 6 awards for “Best Original Score”, “Best Composer”, and “Best Film Music”, in which one was an Academy Award. Without this unique detail of sound in the film, the same feelings and emotions couldn’t have been fulfilled.

John Wayne Y'all

To start out, I've missed a lot of pieces of this film due to leadership meetings and visits to the career center; therefore, there is much of the film I haven't viewed yet. From what I've seen so far in John Ford's Stagecoach, the camera angles in this film intrigue me. I enjoy the fact that cinematographer Bert Glennon broke away from the typical 180 degree rule. During the chase scene it would flip between the characters moving from right to left, then to them moving left to right. Though it may seem to a film critic extremely obvious, to a typical movie-goer like me, it isn't very noticeable. Glennon also uses the authorial and non authorial lens to make certain characters look more dominant or visa-versa. The men are usually the prominent ones while the ladies are viewed as the meeker characters. Another camera angle that drew my attention was when the camera shoots a deep focus shot of the Indians in the foreground and the stagecoach in the background. It depicts the fact that they are far away from each other and the people in the stagecoach have no idea what's coming. Overall, Glennon does a great job with finding the right camera angle, along with the lighting which I didn't touch on. Due to the action in this film, the discontinuity in the editing is not noticeable while watching and doesn’t affect the outcome of the film.

Setting the Scene

While watching Orson Welles' Citizen Kane I was always drawn to the setting of the scene. Cinematographer Gregg Toland really sets a scene incorporating small detailed props. The majority of the film is busy, but not overwhelming. Within the mansion some rooms appeared bare, but if you notice the walls they are very detailed and filled with carvings and sculptures too. During scenes set at Kane's office, the room is always very cramped with desks and people, and papers scattered on top of there desks. There is always people shuffling around, unless the scene is set later in the night, even then it was busy at times. Though Gregg Toland included alot in each of the sets, it didn't distract the audience from what is important and what we, as the audience, should be paying attention to. For instance, when Charles Foster Kane first meets Susan Alexander, he places the snow globe in her room, that is one thing you wouldn't notice the first time viewing the film becuase the attention is on Mr. Kane and Ms. Alexander. He does the same thing with the sled, until after you've already seen the film, the sled would have played no significant part. Overall Gregg Toland does a great job with setting the scene in Orson Welles' Citizen Kane.

No Strings Attached

In Walt Disney's animated film Pinocchio, the producers Ben Sharpsteen and Hamilton Luske create the film using cinematic, literary, and theatrical elements. This amusing plot expands your imagination and allows, even a high school student, to go along on Pinocchio’s immense adventures. Before viewing the film, I was unsure of how the analysis would go. To analyze an animated film seemed obscure to me, but after the viewing I realized the same techniques directors use in Hollywood today are much like the techniques directors Ben Sharpsteen and Hamilton Luske used in 1940 to make the now classic, Pinocchio.

Pinocchio is much like every other Disney movie that has been made, heart-warming, enjoyable, and family-friendly. The story is being narrated by Jiminy Cricket, a cricket that later as the story is told, becomes Pinocchio’s conscience. Pinocchio is initially a puppet, and then later becomes a wooden boy after his “father”, Geppetto, wishes for him to become a real boy. Pinocchio receives directions from the Blue Fairy to be a good, honest boy. If he succeeds at this, he may just become a real boy. Through a series of obstacles, Pinocchio finally realizes that he should have listened to his conscience all along.

One of the major elements used to create the warm attitude of this film is the music. The opening credits role with music playing that is believed to be non-diegetic sound, but as the camera fades to the first scene it is revealed that Pinocchio’s conscience, Jiminy Cricket, is singing the song all along. The use of diegetic sound is found throughout other parts of the movie as well. For example, when Pinocchio and the other bad boys go to Pleasure Island, diegetic sound is used then too. As they reach their destination to Pleasure Island, the noise of exciting music is heard that you find out as they exit the boat, is coming from a carnival that is being held. The music really relates to what is going on in the film at the current time and represents the mood being presented.

Another element that really stood out to me was the camera movement. Each scene fades in and out, making it very evident when the scenes are switching from one to the other. Before nearly each and every scene starts, an extreme long shot or long shot is used to depict where the setting is taking place. The camera then will move around either panning or tracking to give us as the audience a broader view of what is around. After establishing where the scene is taking place, the use of close ups is used frequently, especially when Jiminy Cricket is being shown, for he is only the size of a cricket! Most the scenes duration time was fairly long, taking the time to show details and to really elucidate what is going on, we need to remember while watching, it was made for a younger audience.

Overall, Ben Sharpsteen and Hamilton Luske, along with the help of Walt Disney, create a classic film for the whole family to watch. The integration of themes all relating back to the consistent theme, listen to your conscience, really speak to the audience in an indirect manner. The writer’s decision to include exaggerated lessons subconsciously traces the message into children’s’ heads leaving them with a little more moral than before. No matter how old I get, I know I’ll never be too old to sit back and enjoy a Disney classic.

It's Incredible!

One movie that I really enjoy, other than The Pirates of the Caribbean, is The Incredibles. Although I watch this movie probably far more than I should, it still stands out to me as a great film. Though being a typical animated child’s film, I, along with some of my fellow comrades, thoroughly enjoy the heart warming, family film.
The Incredibles is a movie based upon two superheroes, Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl (the future Mrs. Incredible) and there family of two superhero children, Violet and Dash, and there youngest infant, with no known super powers, Jack-Jack. The “Supers,” as they are referred to in the movie, were banned from saving anyone after a series of lawsuits from people being saved who didn’t want to be. When Mr. Incredible is sent on a special mission, he only finds himself stuck in a fight against an old “friend” of his, Incrediboy, the young teenage boy that tried to hard to be his side kick. Now called Syndrome, he plans on getting rid of all the Supers. It’s Mrs. Incredibles job to save him and without her knowledge Violet and Dash sneak along too, leaving Jack-Jack with the sitter. As they battle Syndrome, who really has no true super powers, they discover the importance of family as they take down the evil super trying to destroy the world!
In the end, as most family films end, all is well and Syndrome is taken down. They also discover Jack-Jack does have super powers! Now that’s what I call a great film.

RENT THE INCREDIBLES!

We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.

While reading critic James Berardinelli’s review of the 2004 film, Crash, not many of his personal feelings were revealed while reflecting upon Paul Haggis’ drama filled film. Though, at the same time, I was led to believe that his response to the film was a constructive one. In the following excerpt from Berardinelli's review, he identifies the way in which the story is told, and how the director could have taken an alternative route but instead did it another way;

"We don't feel like we're being preached to, nor does this seem like a sanctimonious 'message movie.'"…”At first, there's a sense that so much contrivance invites criticism. However, on a second viewing, I was aware of the balance and symmetry in the way the characters' tales connect, sometimes only tangentially.”

His first response was to criticize, but as he assessed the movie the reason for the plot became more evident to why it was a certain way. It was a well thought out plot that had reason as to why the plot lines were crissing and crossing the entire extent of the film. Berardinelli also goes on to compliment the choice of casting in this film. He makes it evident that the cast chosen was in his favor and that those a part of the cast were some of very few who could have done each role.

"The director has assembled a large, accomplished cast that includes Matt Dillon, Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Thandie Newton, and Ryan Phillippe. Amongst other things, this group virtually assures that the film will be seen. All are more than competent in their roles - with Cheadle, Dillon, and Newton being especially memorable - and each does his or her best to enhance the two-dimensionality of the characters as they are presented in the screenplay."

A cast is always, in my mind, one of the first deciding factors of whether or not the film will be a good one. If there are actors or actresses I don’t like, I’m not as compelled to see them, it is the exact opposite for those films with actors and actresses I enjoy watching. To be completely and utterly honest, one main reason I saw this movie was the simple fact that Ryan Phillippe was a large part in this film. He is an extraordinary actor but at the same time, he’s just simply fun to watch! Overall I think that James Berardinelli did a great job at reviewing the movie in a positive structure. Much of what he had to say on the film was what I would have said following seeing the movie. If I hadn’t seen the film prior to reading the review, I think it would have given me a good idea of what the film’s main ideas were and what to expect, but not to ruin it. His non-biased view really indicates much of the meaning of the movie and I think this review could motivate many to go see this amazingly, wonderful, dramatic film.

Hello,
Hayley here, this is my blog, nothing too exciting. I'd have to say the Pirates of the Caribbean movies are my all time favorites, but it doesn't seem that we will be watching any of them in this course. I, in general, love Captain Jack Sparrow and Hadras, one of the pirates on the Flying Dutchman with a conch shell for a head. To clear the rumors, they ARE going to continue the films and make a fourth, which I'm extremely excited about. Along with movies, I like to play outdoors, dance, travel, and when I have time in the winter, snowboard.

There's a little about myself, hope you enjoyed!